Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

You could have just said you don't like jokes.

That doesnt meet the definition of a joke

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Sigh.

Just like that. Just because you can't critically analyze a satire doesn't make it a joke.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

Ah, the old "you're wrong because I say so." As often as you use that one, I'd hope you're taking it in for an oil change once a month.



Sustainability is generally measured by the resources required to produce a given outcome. You're going at it backwards and suggesting that the outcomes (taxes and public services) should have to be sustained regardless of the resources available to produce them. That aside, is there a source for what constitutes "an unsustainable, low level," or is this just more "I disagree, therefore it is wrong?"



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Despite the (now-limited) stretching of the Commerce Clause, most of these functions were supposed to be left to and decided by the states.



I have said it many times before that what "works" in other countries (and whether or not it actually does work and/or how well it works--whatever it happens to be, Captain Vague--is yet another point to debate) will not necessarily work in The United States because we're not <insert other country here>. What you suggest would be akin to attempting to replace the carburetor on your Pontiac with one from a Ford. Sure they're both cars, and they both need carburetors, but the one that works on the Ford does not work on the Pontiac despite the fact that they're meant to serve the exact same purpose.



Just because the news people can put an (R) after your name doesn't mean you tow the party line, nor does having the (R) after your name obligate you vote a certain way. There may be consequences involved, such as the base of the party not turning out to vote for John McCain's presidential bid in 2008. I don't endorse many policies that the Republican party has as part of their platform, even though I generally vote for republican candidates. I'm not alone in that among republicans or democrats, and to suggest otherwise is silly.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Sustainability in the context of public spending refers to everything from infrastructure to education to the general nuts and bolts of government, that ensure everything from literacy, roads, public safety, edible food and potable water, and rule of law (which, incidentally, right-wingers in their ignorance think is based on force and nothing but force).

As it is, government at every level is running deficits while providing less services than are necessary to sustain what is generally referred to as a first-world lifestyle. At this rate, the result will be roads that are impassible, lack of access to fresh water, industry and agriculture collapsing due to lack of infrastructure and an educated workforce, and violent crime as a national way of life (in the sense that crooks will outnumber and outgun cops and lawful citizens the way they do in countries like Mexico and Brazil).

The very fact Americans think that such things are unthinkable or that private industry is more responsible than government for keeping those horrors at bay is testament to the extent to which they are ignorant and entitled and refuse to understand where their good life comes from. Taxes for the wealthiest are lower than ever before in our history while they are doing better than ever before. Plain and simple they need to contribute more.

The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, during the Iron Age. The FFs could never have foreseen how technological advance changed society and the balance of power in society and how government in turn would need to change to keep things stable.

In their lifetimes there were no AK-47s, no mechanized agriculture, no powerful energy sources such as oil and electricity that are no contest against the labor of individual men. You got your water from the town well and you got whatever food you didn't grow yourself from the town farmer, or by fishing in a local stream. Your wife spent most of her free time mending because there were no textile mills. They could not have foreseen that access to food and water would not be a given due to environmental degradation, that individuals would have access to weapons of mass murder or that the industrial and information revolution would destroy home industry, or the enormous power over society that those holding the keys to those things would come to have and how government would need to change to keep up.

Local power works if the worldly affairs are driven by factors operating at the local level. In this world that is not true so parroting what the Constitution says is no different than biblical literalism.

You don't know shit about other countries so its sufficient to say that your response is based on ignorance. You're implying that all other countries that use such policies are similar to each other and mutually dissimilar from the US, which is an inherently ignorant and myopic response because obviously the many countries that "do what works" are no more similar to each other than they are to the US. Human nature is pretty consistent and what does and doesn't work is pretty consistent throughout the history you refuse to educate yourself about.

The last paragraph you wrote is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever seen you say in that you think that party designation is defined by the media or that politicians can just be the party's candidate on their own discretion, and the very fact you believe something so far beyond incorrect is testament to the utter wrongness of everything you believe about anything connected to our political system and national situation.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

So apparently we're going with, "because I said so." Gotcha.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Yes.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

So why not get rid of the constitution entirely then?

It's obvious the country needs a complete reorganization to proceed forward - a renegotiation of the social contract on terms that are relevant and appropriate.

The mechanism to do so - a third Constitutional Convention - is extant, under Article V of the current constitution. The problem is that the consensus required (2/3rds of Congress or state legislatures to call, 3/4th of state legislatures to approve) is impossible in today's political environment. There is also the serious risk of a "runaway convention".

Jubber's observation that case law has become an arbitrary and tyrannical mess is accurate. He is not sufficiently educated to be aware but this is not an unprecedented issue in history. Napoleon and Justinian were remembered as great lawgivers because they wiped hundreds of years of case law and replaced it with coherent and rational legal systems relevant to their time. Likewise, amongst Dickens' criticisms of British society, besides blaming the rich for saying the same things they say here in America today, was the role of the irrelevant and self-interested legal system.

I actually don't think that a massive rewrite of the constitution beyond recognition would be necessary to fix America's problems. I think that the problems with our political system boil down to a few small weaknesses or omissions that have been exploited way out of proportion in response to the pressures of history. Certain rights (mostly economic in nature) were not guaranteed because the FFs did not foresee the necessity; others (such as the right to bear arms, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly) have come to mean very different things to us today than what they meant to the FFs.

Also it should be understood America's problems aren't even really political at all but social and cultural, and those issues will require fixes more profound than just changes in our legal system or distant institutions. What is required are fundamental changes in our culture and way of life. Ironically amongst those necessary changes is the development of a sense of intellectualism, community and enlightened long-term thinking contrary to the American character that also precludes said changes. Chicken and egg.

Realistically, though, like I said, none of that is going to come out of the current situation until things get so bad that a national socialist movement can take root in a state of mass desperation that does not currently exist but will eventually come to exist.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

The Constitution affects every American and that's why it should be difficult to amend, needing an overwhelming majority of support by the American public and/or its elected representatives. The fact that the argument, "We can't amend the Constitution because the politics are so polarized on certain issues," exists proves that the Constitution is working as intended.

What exactly would "Economic Rights" be?

This is a good argument, and you're in large part correct. My response would be that there is a difference between polarization and logjam.



The exact phrasing would require a great deal of thought, but the overall goals would be:
-establish the long-term stewardship of the land, air and water as a national enterprise above and beyond who owns what in the here and now (owning the land does not give you the right to pollute it)
-make oppressive taxation unconstitutional (e.g., Prop 13 and similar laws that discriminate against internal migrants, tax breaks for women and minorities, excessive taxes on smoking, gambling and homesteads, and vicious competition between state and local governments on taxation)
-make unconstitutional that only corporations are permitted to endorse individuals for security clearance and other similar laws and practices that empower corps at the expense of individual people and start-ups
-make unconstitutional that corporations receive human civil rights
-establish that legal culpability follows accountability and benefit (e.g., using contractors and secrecy to avoid blame for illegal practices)
-establish unconditional access to the necessities of life (food, water, housing, primary education, telecommunication) as a fundamental mission of government alongside national defense, transit and postal service
-establish that all laws applying to commerce and industry apply to products and services irrespective of where they are manufactured
-make unconstitutional campaign donations and other quid pro quo in both law and practice, and establish a mechanism by which politicians are guaranteed a voice in some way reasonably independent of changes in our economy (e.g., guaranteed air and print time upon meeting a quorum)
-make unconstitutional adjustable rate loans and mortgages and repossessions illegal (lenders will be responsible for their own risks)
-make unconstitutional for the government to give sponsorship to organizations that do not accept the restrictions of the constitution and federal law (e.g., FOIA) as internally binding (e.g., the Fed, banks, colleges, housing organizations and other NGOs that hide behind the lame "we're not the government" excuse)
-make unconstitutional the retention, sharing and actioning of personal information by the state or private industry by establishing that any information about a person is that person's property
-make unconstitutional the mandatory imposition of compensation for others discretionary services (e.g., being forced to pay others' legal fees)
-make unconstitutional the waiving of constitutional rights
-establish that international treaties are legally binding and actionable in American courts, but that the constitution is the supreme law of the land transcending any treaty

Many of these goals could probably be achieved through law, but in some cases attempts to do so have been ruled conflicting with (or permissible under) our current constitution, and I believe that only by affirming these goals as part of the definition of the state can there be the mandate to action them effectively.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.